Wouter Termont

What about definition lists? Would you make an exception for those?

Using `http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont#format` seems a decent choice to me, even if the Media Ontology feels rather arbitrary in its choice of properties. I would suggest using whatever predicate we decide on...

> " NOTE: Solid Protocol raises the level of this requirement from original SHOULD [RFC9110] to MUST This requirement also applies when responding to `HEAD` requests, since the response still...

> @woutermont which part do you consider incorrect? Based on the two links at the end of the note, it seems to me that: In response to HEAD request, the...

> As I understand it, this PR (or in this direction) would satisfy https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/#resid_what_to_spec. Yes and no. It is compliant with the therein prefered specs, but our text does not...

Thanks @damooo, for the elaborate comment, which raises some good questions. I will try to address them all below. > [@damooo:] There are two orthogonal issues here. One is about...

> But since the Solid WebID Profile spec does not define a WebID, rather counts on WebID 1.0 to define it, we would not be able to remain spec compliant...

@damooo, the concerns you raise are interesting questions, but should not pose an issue for the adoption of IRIs. > > [T]he proposal only applies to the target URI. Any...

In https://github.com/solid/user-stories/issues/146 I raised the question whether we should pool the UCR documents together in a single repo/document, based on the discussion during the weekly Solid CG [meeting of 2022-12-14](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/488)....

Agreed. The `client_id` and `webid` of an App should be the same URI, as was probably meant that way, and is semantically quite obvious. It then dereferences to a single...